All Catholic religious communities can interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise of Pope Benedict but then the Jewish Left will oppose it.Since Vatican Council II would support what Rabbi Rosen, would call 'a replacement or supersession theology'.1.
About 45 minutes back I prayed the rosary before Mass in Italian with a few people at the Salesian church at Termini,Rome.I am reminded of a former Parish Priest at this church.The Salesian priest told me that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and I posted his statement on this blog.This was a few years back.He was saying the same thing as Don Bosco. He got a warning.He was not allowed by the Rome- Vicariate and the Vatican to affirm Feeneyite EENS.The Vatican and Vicariate are monitored and controlled by the Jewish Left with ties to Israel.So the priest could not say something which is obvious i.e that cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are physically invisible in our reality.They never ever were an exception to the dogma EENS.
This mistake was permitted in the Church in 1949 about the time Israel got its independence.The Zionist state could have threatened the Church as it does now.So the ecclesiology of this Salesian priest, who offers Mass in Italian, would be the same as the ecclesiology of the Latin Mass in the 16th century.
It is of course not the ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass offered today which takes into account the theological demands of the Jewish Left.Priests cannot speak freely in the homily.The Italian governments permit the local police to monitor homilies,especially those at the SSPX chapels.
23. The Church is called the new people of God (cf. "Nostra aetate", No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist.
The Church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as the community founded on Christ it represents in him the fulfilment of the promises made to Israel.
Yes the Catholic Church replaces the Jewish religion.Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14). Jews do not have the baptism of water with Catholic faith at the time of death.But Catholic religious communities are not allowed to affirm this.Rabbi Rosen and others would object and use their weapon, the Anti-Semitic laws.
Another priest, a diocesan priest who offered the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome agreed with me that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance .They are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I told him that I would quote him on my blog.He agreed.
This priest was not allowed to offer Holy Mass the next Sunday.It was only after an auxiliary bishop visited the Church did things return to normal.
So it is obligatory for all priests to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.The SSPX and FSSP priests use the false premise yet it is surprising to see the sedevancatists priests also doing the same,since they are not under the Vatican.
A Brazilian Dominican priest affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions and gave me permission to quote him. He was a confessor at St. Mary Majors.He was soon gone.Even his Confessional was removed.He was prepared for these repercussions.
So when Pope Benedict said in March 2016 that Vatican Council II is 'a development' of the dogma EENS and since 'there is salvation outside the Church' .so why have mission, this was all a big bluff. There is no known salvation outside the Church.
The popes are not being allowed by the Jewish Left to speak the truth.They do not allow Catholics priests and religious communities to speak to affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free).
The popes are not being allowed by the Jewish Left to speak the truth.They do not allow Catholics priests and religious communities to speak to affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free).
The Vatican, to protect its financial and other interests would be forced to suspend the priest or religious.
So all this makes me ask why do the sedevacantists like MHFM, Bishop Donald Sanborn, Fr.Anthony Cekada and CMRI interpret invisible baptism of desire as being a visible exception to Feeneyite EENS? Since they are not under direct pressure from the Jewish Left as is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Also what prevents Bishop Richard Williamson from saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in 2017 ? Is it difficult to state that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake? This was the reason why the Council was a rupture with Tradition for him.
Since if Archbishop Lefebvre said that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases,then Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with EENS, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. There would be no break with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.This would be replacement and supersession theology.
He was correct in saying Vatican Council II ( with the premise) is a rupture with Tradition.It is.
Meanwhile Cardinal Ratzinger was not ready to say LG 16 etc were hypothetical cases.So they could not be exceptions to Tradition.He still did not say this in March 2016.Does the Jewish Left want it this way? Yes , of course.
Meanwhile Cardinal Ratzinger was not ready to say LG 16 etc were hypothetical cases.So they could not be exceptions to Tradition.He still did not say this in March 2016.Does the Jewish Left want it this way? Yes , of course.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct.Vatican Council II( with the premise) was a rupture with Tradition.So the Masons wanted him excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II with the conclusion which comes with the use of the false premise?
Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there was no known salvation outside the Church and they excommunicated him.Did the Masons want this too? At about that time there was the new Zionist state of Israel.
Were the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney leftist excommunications? They were excommunicated because they were orthodox ?-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 11, 2017
1
17.17. On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment